Subscribe for Free
View PDF
Send to a Friend
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Usage Statistics and How We’re Using Them:
The Example of Glasgow University
Preparing a manuscript for publication is a multi-faceted and, sometimes, anxiety-ridden task. Tips presented here should help you keep track of issues you need to think about and complete your work successfully.
The provision of usage statistics for electronic journals is potentially revolutionizing collection management practices within research libraries worldwide. Until recently, the absence of any international standards, or even conventions, on how to measure usage or how to present such statistics as are available has presented a serious barrier to sustained analysis of comparative statistics. This has acted as a major disincentive to library staff to invest the large amount of time necessary to obtain the most benefit from comparative statistics. The growing adoption of COUNTER standards is rapidly changing this situation.
What We’re Doing Now, and Challenges Before Us
Locally, at Glasgow University Library we now systematically collect and retain e-journal statistics from as many publishers as possible. Our aim is to use the information we collate to influence collection management decisions, but this is not as simple or straightforward as might first appear to be the case. At Glasgow, we allocate funds to each faculty (e.g., medicine or social sciences), which is then responsible for its own journal subscriptions. Faculties vary as to how much they wish to take account of hard statistical evidence presented to them, as opposed to the academics’ “gut feelings” on which journals are essential to their research and teaching.
Even after taking account of different numbers of staff and students, usage also varies considerably from one subject area to another. If we took account of nothing but raw statistics, we would subscribe to a great many biomedical and life science journals, and relatively few in the wide variety of other fields covered at Glasgow. Table 1 shows comparative usage by faculty for the calendar year 2004.
| Faculty.............................................................................2004 E-Access | |
| Arts .......................................................................... | 3.3% |
| Biomedical & Life Sciences ........................................... | 29.3% |
| Clinical Medicine .......................................................... | 24.8% |
| Dental ....................................................................... | 1.0% |
| Education .................................................................. | 0.2% |
| Engineering ................................................................ | 6.1% |
| Information & Math Sciences ......................................... | 3.4% |
| Law & Financial Studies ................................................ | 2.4% |
| Physical Sciences ........................................................ | 13.9% |
| Social Sciences .......................................................... | 10.3% |
| Veterinary Medicine ..................................................... | 5.3% |
| Table 1: E-journal Use by Faculty, University of Glasgow | |
There is also a difference in reliance on online as opposed to print access. Staff and students in engineering or physics, for example, rely almost entirely on e-journals, while on the arts side there is still considerable consultation of print journals (where use is of course almost impossible to measure).
Another factor is variation in use for particular journals year by year. This is partly a natural reflection of changes in research and teaching (and therefore useful information), but there also appears to be a more random element. So we try to have at least three years of data available for decision making, unless we know that for instance a particular department is closing down.
Finally, we would very much like to know more about patterns of use, in particular whether usage concentrates on articles from the last six or twelve months, or is spread more widely. Very few publishers provide this level of detail, and it is not (yet) part of COUNTER standards. However this level of detail is very relevant when considering subscriptions where for example there is free access after six or twelve months, and also when considering whether backfile purchase would be a suitable investment. 
